In August 1992, following a visit to Mia Farrow’s house in Bridgewater, Connecticut, Woody Allen was accused of sexual abuse on her adoptive 7 years old daughter, Dylan Farrow.

Below is the report of the Child Sexual Abuse Clinic Evaluation of Dylan Farrow by the Yale-New Haven Hospital, leaked by Radar Online.

The referral was made by the Connecticut State Police at a meeting of the Police, State’s Attorney Frank Maco, and members of the Child Sexual Abuse Team.

The report completely dismisses Dylan Farrow sexual abuse allegation: “It’s our expert opinion that Dylan was not sexually assaulted by Mr. Allen. Further, we believe that Dylan’s statements on videotape and her statements to us during our evaluation do not refer to actual events that occurred to her on August 4, 1992.”

New York State Department of Social Services

On October 7, 1993, a second independent 14-month-old investigation, from the New York State child welfare, cleared a second time Woody Allen and declared the Dylan Farrow sexual abuse allegation unfounded: “No credible evidence was found that the child named in this report has been abused or maltreated. This report has, therefore, been considered unfounded.”

Typed transcription

Yale-New Haven Hospital 20 York Street. New Haven. CT 06504

March 17, 1993

Child Sexual Abuse Clinic Evaluation of Dylan Farrow

Dylan Farrow (BD 7/11/85, Unit # 1502912) was referred to the Child Sexual Abuse Clinic of Yale-New HavenHospital in September 1992. The referral was made by the Connecticut State Police at a meeting of the Police (BeatriceFarlekas and John Mucherino), State’s Attorney Frank Maco, and members of the Child Sexual Abuse Team. At that meeting, the history that the police had at the time was briefly presented, and the videotape (taken by Ms.Farrow) of Dylan telling what had reportedly happened to her was reviewed.Two major questions that were posed in the referral were:

Is Dylan telling the truth, and did we think that she was sexually abused?

To determine the meaning of Dylan’s statements and whether they were true, we interviewed her on nine occasions. In addition, because the family context and Dylan’s past psychiatric history are important in understanding the meaning of her statements, we met with both of her parents, two babysitters, and two psychotherapists who had evaluated and treated Dylan and Satchel.

The chronology of our evaluation is outlined below:

9/08/92 — Meeting with State Police and State’s Attorney Maco for presentation of case.

9/15/92 — Meeting of Ms. Sawyer and Detective John Mucherino to present more details of the information known by the police.

In summary, Dylan presented as an intelligent, verbal 7-year-old whose story telling was quite elaborate and fantasy-like at times and who manifested loose associations in her thinking. She appeared confused about what to relate to the interviewers and was very controlling of what she would say. In her statements and her play she elaborated interrelated themes. She was upset by the loss of her father and Soon-Yi and worried that her father might take her from her mother’s care. She felt protective of and worried for her mother. Dylan was very much attuned to her mother’s pain, and her mother reinforced Dylan’s losses and her negative view of her father.

Assessment of Whether Dylan was Sexually Abused:

It is our expert opinion that Dylan was not sexually abused by Mr. Allen. Further, we believe that Dylan’s statements on videotape and her statements to us during our evaluation do not refer to actual events that occurred to her on August 4, 1992. Our initial impression was formulated in December 1992 before reviewing any outside materials and before meeting with anyone outside the family except the Connecticut State Police and Kristie Groteke, a babysitter. Our opinion was reinforced by the additional information that we gathered throughout the rest of the evaluation.

In developing our opinion, we considered three hypotheses to explain Dylan’s statements. First, that Dylan’s statements were true and that Mr. Allen had sexually abused her; second, that Dylan’s statements were not true but were made up by an emotionally vulnerable child who was caught up in a disturbed family and who was responding to the stresses in the family; and third, that Dylan was coached or influenced by her mother, Ms. Farrow.

While we can conclude that Dylan was not sexually abused, we can not be definitive about whether the second formulation by itself or the third formulation by itself is true. We believe that it is more likely that a combination of these two formulations best explains Dylan’s allegations of sexual abuse. The major reasons for our opinion that Dylan was not sexually abused are the following:

(1) There were important inconsistencies in Dylan’s statements in the videotape and in her statements to us.

(2) She appeared to struggle with how to tell about the touching.

(3) She told the story in a manner that was overly thoughtful and controlling. There was no spontaneity in her statements, and a rehearsed quality was suggested in how she spoke.

(4) Her descriptions of the details surrounding the alleged events were unusual and were inconsistent.

Original document

Moses Farrow has confirmed that his mother has coached her sister Dylan Farrow.

The report suggests that Mia Farrow could have coached or influenced Dylan Farrow’s sexual abuse allegation:

“…;and third, that Dylan was coached or influenced by her mother, Ms. Farrow.”

Moses Farrow is Woody Allen and Mia Farrow adopted son. His last testimony, A SON SPEAKS OUT has been published on May 23, 2018 and details Mia Farrow’s abuse. But he has confirmed that his mother Mia Farrow has coached Dylan Farrow’s sexual abuse allegation on many occasions:

So many times I saw my mother try to convince her that she was abused – and it has worked. Some day, I hope Dylan can escape from my mother, confront the truth and begin her own healing. #truthislouder

I never had a minimum doubt about Woody Allen innocence, even before knowing all his legal questions, the two separate investigations, the official documents and the very accurate description of the Farrow’s family under the Mia’s total control done by Moses Farrow, I simply thought: is it possible that a man can act as a paedophile just for fifteen minutes of his life? And plus, why a man decided to sexually assault his daughter just when the mum is against him and openly trying to drive him in the mud? If Allen was an abuser probably would have tried to assault other girls in the family or in the movies environment, sadly he just had an affair with SoonYi and built a family with her… Even without legal evidences, and in this case there are a lot of evidences in Allen favor, the logic can suggest that allegations against Allen are simply the result of a very vindicative woman, yes a scorned woman can do everything for revenge and Mia did it. I think we can call her as the Medea of Manhattan.

ALL facts say that Woody Allen is innocent. ALL facts say that Dylan Farrow is lying. ALL.

40 Undeniable facts about Mia Farrow and her family

…betrayed her friend Dory Previn… lied in court… videotaped Dylan in many days… refused to take a polygraph… coached Dylan… slapped Moses face… drug problem… dies from AIDS at 35… kill herself at 21… kill himself at 27… in jail for sexual abuse… Net Worth $60 Million… committed suicide… hit Soon-Yi on the face… asked her to lie… to rape a 13yo girl… with my daddy in the attic… favored her biological children… asked for help on GoFundMe…

Statute of limitations: Dylan Farrow is misleading all survivors

Statute of limitations doesn't prevent Dylan Farrow to take Woody Allen in civil court. And even criminal prosecution could still be an option if she had not changed her story regarding allegations of sexual abuse.